ingestion's dialog uses some type based methods for customizability, use
same type based methods here.

The default group of documents attached to accounting transactions can be
taken from the group of sections

Base_viewNewFileDialog/your_publication_section allows to easily suggest
a default publication section to the user, but the "group" was not so
easily customizable, it was just getting from document or user.

Introduce the same mechanism as for publication section, a type based
script that can be defined for each portal type.

On documents, we have an "Export" action for OOoDocument_viewConvertDialog.
When erp5_ods_style is installed, "Export to Spreadsheet" is added as a global
action. Both these actions were translated as "Exporter" in french, which is
confusing and a bit incorrect.
Use a proper, different translation for "Export to Spreadsheet"

This test was comparing lines returned in unspecified order, sort the lines
to be sure.

fix pylint warnings

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1363

"contact us" feature of erp5_web uses erp5_crm

testTemplateTool depend on the actual order of installation of business
template, so update it now that the order has changed.

configurator scripts also had to be updated, so that
erp5_ingestion_mysql_innodb_catalog is installed before erp5_web/erp5_crm
because since erp5_crm depends on ingestion, it will install
erp5_ingestion_mysql_innodb_catalog, which has new tables and SQL methods
for indexation, so it needs to be installed with `update_catalog=True`.

As we can see here, configurator uses installBusinessTemplateListFromRepository
to install business templates one by one (in the same order that they are
added with addConfigurationItem), and pass update_catalog only for
business templates which add new tables/indexation methods and needs a
catalog update after install, but what happened is that we install
erp5_web with update_catalog=False, which will install
erp5_ingestion_mysql_innodb_catalog, also with update_catalog=False so
the activities to install business templates fail with errors like:

    ProgrammingError: (1146, "Table 'erp5_test_*.email' doesn't exist")

Since 459093f3 (ERP5Form: implement a basic checkConsistency for
ProxyField, 2021-01-26) we can detect inconsistentencies in ProxyFields
internal data structures. These are the changes after using
checkConsistency(fixit=True) for erp5_web

This relation field is used to select the web pages that will be displayed,
by using the standard ERP5 document management feature of selecting the
best applicable page with the same reference, but this list did not show
the reference of the web page

for security reasons, info on users, or existence of usernames shouldn't be leaked from the system.

manage_FTPget is an API to serve the file content to response, it is not
suitable to just get the file/page template content like we need here.
It was causing issues when running through activities, because timerserver
responses does not have the setBase method, but is also wrong because
large files are streamed to response directly.

Zope does not really offer an unified API to get the source of page
templates or files, except the PrincipiaSearchSource method which it uses
for its builtin search engine. It seems suitable to use here as well.

Also add a test for the case where web pages are in a OFS.File, only
the case of PageTemplate was covered.

Use the `ui-list-grid` class on a `ul` element.

```
return gadget.getTranslationDict([Foo])
  .push(function (translation_dict) {
    console.log(translation_dict['Foo'])
  });
```

```
return gadget.getCommandUrlForDict({
  foo_key: {
    command: 'display'
  }
})
  .push(function (url_dict) {
    console.log(url_dict.foo_key);
  });
```

erp5_web_renderjs_ui_test: Add page to be used as example of links to extra menu and cover it with test

The query planner does not seem to notice that we are trying to know if
any row exists matching a set of dependency values, and it keeps scanning
multiple row for each value - which is unproductive.
So split dependency queries from (pseudo-code)
  WHERE <column{,s}> IN <values{, pairs}>
to unions of
  WHERE <column{,s}> = <value{, pair}> LIMIT 1
which produces query plans which do stop immediately when finding a
candidate row.
On a serialization_tag query with 40 values and real-world indexations,
this reduces the number of rows scanned by mariadb from 500 (<10%
efficiency) to 40 (100% efficiency).
The produced SQL is significantly larger (~3x, around 500kB on
real-world sample data, but may vary a lot depending on value length),
but if this has any effect is is more than compensated by the improved
query plan efficiency.

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1355

For test components, we don't use getBusinessTemplateList but define the
business templates to be installed as (test) dependencies of the business
template containing the test.

update test after c3eb0b30 , because non editable editor now render HTML

See merge request nexedi/erp5!957

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1353

currently with a test that tests document_connection

Ensure float/integer field can align right on the listbox
See nexedi/erp5@cfbc621b

This was removed from products in previous commits

Nowadays instead of creating many portal types, we use `use` category to
separate different types of movements, so it makes sense to filter by use,
the same way that we already were able to filter by portal type.

Let's be consistent and use the default size.

When `Form.proxifyField` is used to make a proxy field from a field which has only a TALES and no value, it creates a proxy field with inconsistent internal data structures where `has_value` method does not work as expected. As a consequence, proxy fields to list fields are often broken in the ods/odt rendering.

Here is a scenario to reproduce the problem:

* add `Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary` ERP5 Form
* add a `LinesField`, with id `your_test_base_field`. Change `size` to 1 (not really required but I did this in screenshots here)
* add another `LinesField`, with id `your_test_field` and in this field:
   * set a `default` (`2`) in values, it's only needed to visualise the problem in ods style:
![set default and no items](/uploads/0cb9e229b0ca6761bb15f3d8845ea3f8/image.png)
   * set `items` in TALES (`python: [('one', '1'), ('two', '2')]`) , this will be the problem
![set items in TALES](/uploads/93d90f57e15afdcca60324675b59086a/image.png)
 * So far, when this is rendered as ODS, everything is fine:
![ODS before](/uploads/ce387cd7a5146585104470bf099f890b/image.png) 
this is also what we see in html style view: ![html before](/uploads/650330951ed286576f8366bbd5c44139/image.png)
 * use the proxify action, to make `your_test_field` be a proxy field to `your_test_base_field`
![proxify action](/uploads/9ff7b29141ce7f170f340c842fd76830/image.png)
 * result of proxify action looks good, both for values:
![values after proxify](/uploads/a9f7df3cd2d0af1e036aeff352624760/image.png) and for TALES:
![TALES after proxify](/uploads/aeaaa45cc9e91e9327781d85ec1efd57/image.png)
 * but after this rendering the form with ODS becomes broken:
![ODS after proxify](/uploads/d4e7be3251c596de35333526d4f6277a/image.png) even though it looks fine with html views.

`erp5_ods_style` knows how to render list fields and it uses the "display" (two) and not the "value" (2), this is done [here](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/bt5/erp5_ods_style/SkinTemplateItem/portal_skins/erp5_ods_style/field_ods_macro.zpt#L60) with a check depending on `field.has_value("items")`.

`has_value` is implemented like [this](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/product/ERP5Form/ProxyField.py#L598-611) for proxy fields:
```python
  def has_value(self, id):
    """
    Return true if the field defines such a value.
    """
    result = None
    if (id in self.widget.property_names) or \
       (not self.is_delegated(id)):
      result = ZMIField.has_value(self, id)
    else:
      proxy_field = self.getTemplateField()
      if proxy_field is not None:
        result = proxy_field.has_value(id)
    return result
```

and like [this](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/product/Formulator/Field.py#L80-86) for traditional fields:

```python
    def has_value(self, id):
        """Return true if the field defines such a value.
        """
        if self.values.has_key(id) or self.form.has_field(id):
            return 1
        else:
            return 0
```

when the value is defined on the proxy field and not delegated to template field, the condition is `self.values.has_key(id)`.

But `Form.proxifyField` when transforming a traditional field in a proxy field does not keep the `id` in `self.values` if it's only needed in `self.tales`. This is the root cause of this problem, if we inspect the field, it is something like this:

```
(Pdb) self
<ProxyField at /erp5/portal_skins/custom/Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary/your_test_field>
(Pdb) pp self.tales
{'field_id': '',
 'form_id': '',
 'items': <Products.Formulator.TALESField.TALESMethod object at 0x7ffa705c7450 oid 0x572626 in <Connection at 7ffa42c1a610>>}
(Pdb) pp self.values
{'default': '2',
 'field_id': 'your_test_base_field',
 'form_id': 'Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary',
 'title': 'Test Field'}
(Pdb) self.has_value('items')
0
(Pdb) 
```

If we edit the proxy field, it will repair itself, because the proxy field edit method maintain `self.tales` and `self.values` consistent, but this is not the case  with`Form.proxifyField`, which mutate directly `.tales` and `.values` and can make them have different keys - which is not supposed to happen.

The problem is that most of the proxy fields we have have been generated by `Form.proxifyField`, so for most of our fields the XML data of business template has this inconsistency. We could have took the easy way and make change `ProxyField.has_value` to understand this case, but it's probably better to fix the data. 
`erp5_hal_json` also uses `field.has_value` in some places, so it's better to fix at field level and not to address this in `erp5_ods_style` and `erp5_odt_style`.


These changes:
 - add a little more test coverage for `ProxyField.has_value` ( at first I thought the problem was only in `has_value`)
 - Fix `Form.proxifyField`
 - add a `ProxyField.checkConsistency` to check that `.values` and `.tales` are in sync - or more exactly that all entries from `.tales` are also in `.values`, because this is what cause the problem with `has_value`.
 - re-export all proxy fields after cleaning up their `.values` and `.tales`, using `checkConsistency(fixit=True)` on all proxy fields.

See merge request !1352